Abdur'Rahman v. Bell, No. 09-5307 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted in 1987 of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit first-degree murder, and armed robbery, was denied habeas corpus relief and filed a motion for relief under Rule 60(b). After several appeals, the district court granted a motion to consider the merit of certain claims that it earlier concluded were procedurally defaulted, but ultimately denied relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the prosecution withheld two pieces of evidence before sentencing, in violation of Brady v. Maryland: pretrial statements made by an accomplice regarding the influence of a quasi-religious paramilitary group on the crime, and a detective's account of petitioner's self-destructive behavior while in police custody. The petitioner already knew the underlying facts and those facts were not material.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.